• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ANUFACTURERS
'
 
O
PPOSITION
T
O
R
AMBUS
’
S
M
OTION
T
O
S
TRIKE
 C
ASE
N
OS
.
 
05-00334;
 
05-002298;
 
06-00244
 
[
Parties Listed On Signature Page
]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIXSEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTORMANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,INC., SAMSUNG AUSTINSEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONU.S.A.,Defendants.Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
MANUFACTURERS’ OPPOSITION TORAMBUS’S MOTION TO STRIKE (1)PORTIONS OF THE SECONDSUPPLEMENTAL MCALEXANDEREXPERT REPORT, AND (2)SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION 282NOTICES
Hearing Date: February 5, 2009Time: 9:00 AMCourtroom: 6, 4th FloorJudge: Ronald M. Whyte
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3145 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 16
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ANUFACTURERS
’
 
O
PPOSITION
T
O
R
AMBUS
’
S
M
OTION
T
O
S
TRIKE
 
2
C
ASE
N
OS
.
 
05-00334;
 
05-002298;
 
06-00244
 
RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,INC., SAMSUNG AUSTINSEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,Defendants.Case No. C 05-02298 RMWRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. andMICRON SEMICONDUCTORPRODUCTS, INC.,Defendants.Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3145 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 2 of 16
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ANUFACTURERS
’
 
O
PPOSITION
T
O
R
AMBUS
’
S
M
OTION
T
O
S
TRIKE
1
C
ASE
N
OS
.
 
05-00334;
 
05-002298;
 
06-00244
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1II. RESPONSE TO RAMBUS'S STATEMENT OF “RELEVANT” FACTS...............................2III. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................4A. Rambus's Request to Strike is Fundamentally Unfair.............................................4B. The Opinions in Mr. McAlexander’s Second Supplemental Report ProperlyResponded to Rambus’s December 23, 2008 Letter...............................................5C. Rambus’s Request to Strike Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions RegardingIntegration Is Without Merit...................................................................................6D. Rambus’s Request to Strike Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions Related to theMorgan Deposition Is Misleading...........................................................................8E. Rambus’s Request to Strike the Opinions Related to the Horowitz, Fu, andMoussouris Articles Should Be Denied..................................................................8F. The Manufacturers Properly Supplemented Their Section 282 Notices.................8IV. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................9
 
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3145 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 3 of 16
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...